Laserfiche WebLink
<br />back and say it needs to be removed in four years. She stated the Council was willing to spend <br />that for a flashing yellow light, but they have all these residents coming forward who need to be <br />heard. She felt they need to be made comfortable and spending money to try to help them is <br />important. <br /> <br />Councilmember Woestehoff agreed that an additional traffic study is a good option. Since it is a <br />County road, he would like to get feedback from the County because they will have to participate <br />in the process as well. He added from a process standpoint, this project has requirements that are <br />currently in place for this zoning and other restrictions. He asked if the City fails to meet the 60- <br />day deadline, is it automatically approved. <br /> <br />City Attorney Knaak replied ordinarily, the answer is yes; that is the risk they run. So, if the <br />Council needs additional time, they want to make sure they get it in writing because anything <br />beyond that requires a court order. <br /> <br />Councilmember Specht commented that Councilmembers Howell and Woestehoff have made <br />some good points and want to achieve community buy-in. He felt they should do another traffic <br />study, extend the 60 days, to open it up for the public comment. <br /> <br />Councilmember Musgrove pointed out that Public Works approved a study on the beginning part <br />of County Road 5 based on the rationale that of the development and issues along that stretch. The <br />company didn’t feel they could go farther up because it would be too big of a project. She felt this <br />was a great opportunity to do that traffic study, include those additional intersections, involve the <br />County, and see what that road is going to look like. She noted the road is going to have a lot more <br />traffic on it with this project being added. She referenced the current Preliminary Plat and asked <br />rd <br />what the traffic changes would be to County Road 5 at the intersection of 173 Avenue. <br /> <br />Senior Planner McGuire Brigl replied as a part of the proposal right now, they don’t have full plans <br />rd <br />for the 173road upgrade. As a part of the resolution, they have a dedicated left turn lane heading <br />rd <br />North on Nowthen Boulevard into the project site onto 173 and a thru lane north onto Nowthen <br />rd <br />Boulevard onto 173. <br /> <br />Councilmember Musgrove clarified that it is just two upgrades <br /> <br />Senior Planner McGuire Brigl confirmed this, stating that right now there is a right lane and a thru <br />lane. There is room to restripe those lanes so there would be a dedicated left turn into the property <br />and the other improvements are already made in the area. She explained it is more a restriping <br />than overhauling the road. <br /> <br />Councilmember Musgrove asked if that would coincide with the Hunt property development. <br /> <br />Senior Planner McGuire Brigl confirmed this, stating that was also a contingency in the <br />preliminary plat resolution for the Hunt property. The developer needed come back with full plans <br />rd <br />for 173. If this is approved, they would need to work together on those improvements. <br /> <br />City Council / November 9, 2021 <br />Page 6 of 26 <br /> <br />